Let's get a few things straight.....no offense ment to Lee, however it is a FACT that there has been no discussions of Lee comming to work for Railstar. Staybolts...three broken staybolts and thirty with some form of weepage which developed after the engine went to to shakedown trails. I am sure some of you know the routine, if you are taking the jacket off to get at three, fix all else that you can. I don't know how anyone could think that after an engine sat idle, since 1949, that there would not be a number of issues related to operating on this intense railroad. There are routine pictures of the C&S Moguls operating over the loop, so, I do not think that there could be any questions as to the appropriate use of the No.9 on this line. No.12 is a very approriate engine, especially with the trailing truck helping when we need to run the engine in reverse.

I would also like to take issue with Mr. Lathrop and "HIS" oppinion that there are no "qualified" people here to inspect the locomotives...I respect Dave and his right to an opinion...however, there are a number of us here that are more than qualified to inspect locomotives. Anyone that knows the Loop, I am sure anyone would agree that no locomotive is going to simply roll off of the trailer and require no adjustments or customizing for the operation.

Trains are running, not at our best capacity, but are running. We were only down for one day. The No.9 will go back into service next week and we will continue shaking the engine down.

Regards to ALl,
Steven Torrico
Operations Manager-GLRR

Relieved to discover I was misinformed (and from two theoretically informed sources!) about over 30 broken stays. This makes a lot more sense.

Perhaps staffing has changed since I was there in May. I should not base my opinions on months-old information. Apologies for an unintentional slight should that be the case.

I try to keep up with this railroad from the east coast, having worked there for two different operators, but it makes for some interesting communication malfunctions from time to time. Best wishes to Railstar, and respect returned.

dave

Stuff happens.

How come no one made this big a deal when a tourist operations steam loco shered the wheel off on a pony truck while pulling a loaded passenger train not long ago?

I think some are just trying to do their best to make the Loop look bad in any way they can.

junior wrote "Stuff happens."



Yes, vendettas happen!

A word from your friendly Moderator:

This thread is causing concern. Let's keep it civil before it has to be locked.

Well Mr Lathrop, it would seem to me that if they were weeping then they were in fact broken....wether fully or not does not matter. But wait, since this operation is not under the FRA such logic regarding safety is neither necessary nor required........silly me.

.

Foe the sake of clarification I believe that the term "weeping' is used often when there is leakage from a staybolt. That does not specify whether the leakage is from a telltale hole or if the leakage is coming through the threads and the area where the head is caulked to the side sheets (we use the term in both cases; whether that is correct or not I don't know) Leakage from the telltale hole will indicate a crack or fracture, as that is how the water would be able to get into the telltale hole. water can leak through the threads if the caulking of the end of the bolt is not 100% tight, and that could happen even though the bolt is neither cracked nor broken. This is particularly true on the firebox end of the staybolts on a locomotive that is fired up and cooled down. When the steel in the staybolt and the firebox sheets shrink as they cool, the bolts may weep, and when it is fired up again they usually seal up after the steel is expanded from the heat.

Ed Selinsky

Gentlemen: it is aparent to me that what I believed to be the situation - truly broken staybolts - was not what had occurred.

When i heard about it from the first source, I found it hard to believe, so I checked with another well informed source, in the management of the railroad.

Suffice it to say that the term "broken staybolt" means different things in the business office than in the enginehouse. Their confirmation of over 30 "broken staybolts" didn't mean actually broken. It had not occurred to me that that was the case, until I heard from Steven about the "weeping" which in general terms means they need recaulking or seal welding, not proved actually broken needing replacement as I had thought based on two reports.

It is possible that after caulking or seal welding, some may prove broken and need replacement - if so, no doubt they will be replaced.

So please enough sound and fury signifying nothing - it was a simple misunderstanding based on technical semantics, which led me down the wrong logical path.

No mistake, there does need to be some substantial off season investment in equipment repairs and maintenence if next season is to go off without service interruptions and critical breakdowns. Railstar has honestly brought things such as the broken axle to light, JDC was kind enough to explain the correct testing method. It is now up to CHS to allow Railstar to do what is necessary to continue to assure a safe and profitably reliable operation. I can only hope that they will choose to do so.

dave

Don't feel to bad Roger, when I read the first post by Torrico I read it the same as you did. Never have I heard "weepage from a staybolt" refering to anything from around the threads.